Signal to noise

When California passed a state law in 1986 to require labelling of materials that might have carcinogens and reproductive toxins, there were those who argued that it might be taken to ridiculous extremes, but most folks, by and large, thought it sounded like a fair and reasonable thing to do. After all, how else would the public learn about evil environmental situations, sloppy use of carcinogenic materials and other nastiness. Can’t trust big corporations to tell people about it, of course.

Unfortunately, though catching the potential big offenders was and is a good thing, some of the concerns of the naysayers have come true, such that, it seems, everything in California now needs a warning label. Because the growing perception from the public (rightly or wrongly) is that if you stuff enough of anything into lab rats, you’ll probably find cancer and reproductive problems ensuing.

The latest? French fries and potato chips.

Not that anyone thinks french fries and potato chips are particularly healthy. But California is now suing fast food restaurants and potato chip manufacturers for not including carcinogen warnings.

In a complaint filed on Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court, Lockyer sought an injunction to stop restaurant chains such as McDonald’s Corp. and Wendy’s International Inc. from selling french fries without some form of warning. Also named were producers of potato chips and other packaged potato products like PepsiCo’s Frito-Lay Inc. and Procter & Gamble Co., makers of Pringles chips.

The suit asks manufacturers of these products to identify the dangers of high levels of acrylamide, a chemical that studies have found is created when starchy foods are cooked at high heat. “I know from personal experience that, while these snacks may not be a necessary part of a healthy diet, they sure taste good,” [State Atty General] Lockyer said in a statement. “But I, and all consumers, should have the information we need to make informed decisions about the food we eat.”

Except there are questions as to how “informed” this will actually make anyone. For example, there are questions about acrylamides.

In 2002, scientists found potatoes and other starchy foods cooked at high temperatures contained low levels of acrylamide. Other studies have discounted the potential toxicity of acrylamide to humans.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is studying the impact of acrylamide levels in food. In a March press release, the FDA said “acrylamide can cause cancer in laboratory animals at high doses, although it is not clear whether it causes cancer in humans at the much lower levels found in food.”

In a related note, red meat cooked at high temps also creates potential carcinogens. Will we be seeing cancer warnings for hamburgers — and steaks, bacon, etc. — in California, too? And, even if there is some minor increase in cancer rates, is that more significant than other health impacts of such foods (or other environmental factors)? And does it really provide people with information they can use?

Because, ultimately, if “everything” is labelled as bad for you, then levels of risk get lost, and types of risk get blurred, and nobody can make any intelligent decisions to manage their risks. And that’s at least as great a risk as having no information at all.

(via GeekPress)